Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @10:22PM
from the giant-book-that's-hidden-inside-you dept.

HJED writes "TechWorld is reporting that the joint winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2008, Luc Montagnier, is claiming that DNA can send 'electromagnetic imprints' of itself into distant cells and fluids which can then be used by enzymes to create copies of the original DNA. This would be equivalent to quantum teleportation. You can read the original paper here [PDF]."

By the same token, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even brilliant scientists can sadly find themselves a few bricks short of load. Roger Penrose has humiliated himself with his quantum mind nonsense, and Fred Hoyle's cosmological contributions were overshadowed by his rejection of evolution (quite out of his area of expertise) and advocating of panspermia.

Well there were scientific studies [wavegenetic.ru] done, these are repeatable and falsifiable. Rather than everyone presenting their own skeptical opinion as though it were indisputable truth how about we get a few volunteers to repeat the experiments and actually find out the answer.

I know it's official policy on slashdot to believe unequivocally in hard AI and the fucking singularity, but that doesn't mean it's true and it certainly doesn't mean it's nonsense to come up with counter arguments.

I am a biologist by trade, and I can say that this paper is very, very poorly done. If it was submitted to any major journal in the field, the peer reviewers would tear it to shreds.
Here is the big experiment:
1) Take DNA and place it in tube #1 diluted around 1 million fold
2) Separate it from tube #2 containing all the building blocks of DNA, but not properly assembled
3) In between tube #1 and tube #2 is a special piece of metal
4) Subject the entire thing to low frequency magnetic field
5) There is an induction of the DNA to emit oscillatory radiation
6) DNA replicate magically appears in tube #2 from the building blocks
I can buy the assertion that DNA at certain dilution transmits some strange radiation. It's step 5 to 6 that I think is complete and utter garbage.
They don't do the proper controls for step 4 to 5. What happens when no DNA is present in tube #1? What happens when there is no inducing field? What happens when the building blocks are present in tube #2? They clearly know that this is an issue because they do the exact controls from steps 4 to 5. The "synthesis" of new DNA can easily be explained by one explanation: contamination. DNA sequencing techniques are sensitive enough to detect one or two copies of that sequence. If any of their reagents, tools, or lab members got even a single molecule of DNA on them and transferred it to tube #2, they would see that result. This is a basic fact that pretty much all molecular biologist learns (usually the hard way, by accidentally contaminating something of importance).
To give the authors the benefit of the doubt, I'll go ahead and say they have successfully duped Slashdot with a hoax spoofing the claims of homeopathy.

Yes, this is good. Very good. Just because he can't separate out a mycobacterium from a virus he has to come up with some completely left field explanation?

The 'apparatus' is pretty impressive. I'd expect this out of an eighth grade science fair experiment but "coil made up of copper wire, 300 ohms". That's it? That's all you need? We've all completely missed this one?

I know there is a long lead time on scientific publications but April 1st is still a ways in the future.

I take back my assertion that this is a hoax. Apparently, this Nobel Prize laureate has a history [quackometer.net] of producing very tenuous science on this topic. I think he's actually serious, which is pretty sad.

There are many problems with the paper, not least that it is pretty much self-published in a journal without rigorous peer-review (it took two days from ‘receipt’ of the paper to publishing) and the journal was set up and edited by Montagnier himself.

1) Ultra Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves (ULF 5003000 Hz) were detected in certain
dilutions of ltrates (100 nm, 20 nm) from cultures of micro-organisms (virus, bacteria) or from
the plasma of humans infected with the same agents (Fig. 2). Same results are obtained from
their extracted DNA.

2) The electromagnetic signals (EMS) are not linearly correlated with the initial number of
bacterial cells before their ltration. In one experiment the EMS were similar in a suspension
of E. coli cells varying from 109 down to 10. It is an all or none phenomenon.

His coil is too small to pick up "ULF waves", rather it picks up magnetic fields varying at audio frequencies. There are plenty of natural and artificial sources that produce these and making a sensitive measurement is tricky.

Filed strength is independent of the number of potential emitters - clear signature that they are measuring instrumental noise.

They don't do the proper controls for step 4 to 5. What happens when no DNA is present in tube #1? What happens when there is no inducing field?

From TFA:

The following controls
were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:
- Time of exposure of the two tubes less than 16 18 hrs
- No coil
- Generator of magnetic field turned off
- Frequency of excitation
- Absence of DNA in tube 1.

They did in fact answer all your concerns, and I would think that the fact that the generator turned off resulted in a negative trial addresses most of your concerns about contamination... they shouldn't have gotten a negative for basically ANY of those variables if it was just contamination.

Yeah, they did the proper controls on the DNA generation of frequency. I think that could, within the confines of current science, be a reasonable claim. They did not do those same controls on the transmissible assembly of DNA through these water nanostructures. That claim is the one I think is unbelievable.
If I were writing this paper, I would make it explicit that these controls were performed for both experiments. The fact that they did not do this leads me to conclude they were trying to trick the reader into assuming they did.

It's called the Nobel Disease [scienceblogs.com]. The Nobel Prize is one of the highest prizes awarded in science, so it seems like some scientists think that once they have it, the only way to top their previous work is to escape the confines of reality entirely.

Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.

Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.

Are you referring to Kary Mullis [wikipedia.org]?:) Anyway, I agree - this does seem a good possibility. If you have to think outside the box too much, sometimes you fall out.

Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?

Well one clue is that they usually move into a field that they know little about, but (I guess) think that they completely understand. So, for example, a physicist tries his hand at research into intelligence and determines that people with black skin should not breed because they are idiots (or some such foolishness).

I don't think it is limited to Nobel winners either. It also happens to older/retired scientists, who feel free to pursue new topics. Much of the time this is a good thing; sometimes you get g

Krugman's economic views are coherent, not terribly deep, and potentially wrong, yet he does a more credible job of putting his ideas forward than the people who hate his ideas most (of putting their own ideas forward).

In this context, "potentially wrong" is a merit point, as distinct from ideological views, which are never wrong.

I see no reason to lump Krugman in with a flagrant quack. One of his least deep observations is that "fiscal restraint" in government does a lot more to serve the mid to long term

No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved.

That is an ideological argument not an economic one. Also, it is still the equivalent of starting with the conclusion and massaging everything else with the goal of arriving there, just like the GP said.

Actually, I thought there either will or won't be cats in Hell, and that the existence of said cats will not in fact occur or fail to occur until you observe Hell. On the other hand, one could argue the same for the existence or lack of existence of Hell itself, which is a rather interesting twist. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are some sort of quantum states, the superposition of which the universe exists in simultaneously. Or perhaps I should just stop posting random thoughts late at night.

Winning a Nobel Prize does not give you a lifetime immunity from saying anything idiotic. It doesn't even prevent you from putting idiotic things into the arxiv. One might think there were a negative correlation between being smart enough to win a prize and stupid enough to say something idiotic in public, but the data suggests otherwise. Winning the Nobel seems to give some of these guys the confidence they need to make complete asses of themselves.

I am a particle physicist, and needless to say, the theory proposed in this paper is laughably stupid. The authors have no understanding of quantum field theory, and their observations are a sad combination of wishful thinking and poor experimental design.

And the Nobel Prize isn't quite what it used to be, at least the Peace Prize isn't what it used to be. I mean, they gave one to Obama for what they thought he might do, not what he has actually done.

They also gave one to war criminal Henry Kissinger, and one to genocide apologist Teddy Roosevelt -- I don't think it was ever all that honorable. One must imagine that, had he won, Hitler would have gotten one.

From the freaking paper: "Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions. This phenomenon appears to be triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency. We discuss this phenomenon in the framework of quantum field theory."

In other words, scientists observed something that makes them say "hmm... that's strange," which leads them to say "hmm... I wonder what could be causing this?" These researchers tried to explain the phenomenon using the best tools that they thought that had: quantum mechanics. (classical EM theory is pretty useless for fields this weak) The linked article is behind a wall, but the title seems to start with "Scorn over claim of teleported DNA"

Again from the paper: "In this paper we have described the experiments showing a new property of DNA and the induction of electromagnetic waves in water dilutions. We have briefly depicted the theoretical scheme which can explain qualitatively the features observed in these experiments." Crazy observed phenomenon explained by theories that aren't fully accurate? No way!

The current scientific media seems to increasingly favor sensationalist titles that enable their readers to go "hah, those stupid eggheads, I know better than them that X/Y/Z is impossible! I are smarts!" and this seems to be no different. There is not, has not, and likely will not, be any claims that DNA teleports. However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science./rantover

However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.

Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.

Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...

The paper is in Arxiv, and has not been peer-reviewed. They refer to Craig Venter as "G. Vinter." I won't hold my breath until these results are replicated by third parties.

The only way this is going to get replicated by third parties is after the party has been going on for a long, long time and aqueous dilutions of certain organic solvents have been extensively studied by all involved.

Even worse than the armchair layman criticism is the armchair layman over-excitement. I'm imagining that within a year, if it's not out already, there will be a book published called something like, "Unlocking the Quantum Secrets of Your DNA" which cites this article as proof that humans have ESP/telekinesis/magic voodoo powers embedded in their genetic code. If we could only unlock the 90% of our brains that most humans never use*, imagine what we could do with our powers of teleportation!

* I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am." Probably comes from the proportion of the brain tissue comprised of glial cells.

The title is misleading because it talks about teleportation while the phenomena described, even if it is real, is not teleportation. It makes a copy, it doesn't teleport the original. This isn't teleportation.

The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated. It involves the hypothetical creation of so-called water nanostructures (water memory anyone?), but apparently the ~7hz field is important and recapitulated in the math somehow that's opaque to me.

So that's the paper for dummies, so to speak. If anyone can elaborate or correct in simple terms I'd be happy to read it; this is cool stuff.

Of course your explanation may differ from the one given, but (again) as you may have guessed, they aren't going to put forward "we messed up" as an explanation, so something considerably more complicated must be invoked.

Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."

I think you missed the part where not having DNA in tube 1, not having the coil, not having the coil powered up, etc. all yielded negative results. Unless they just happened to spill bacteria on all 12 out of 12 positive trials, and spill none on the dozens of negative control trials, which is relatively improbable.

I just read the original article, and it is not claiming quantum teleportation.

It is claiming that electromagnetic resonances are set up around polymers in water solution, and if the water contains the right building blocks (monomers), then the resonances can reconstruct copies of the original polymers. This apparently occurs even if there are physical barriers separating the polymers from the monomer solution.

The article relies on quantum mechanics only to the extent that certain quantum mechanical models of water molecule behavior (coherence domains) are used, since "classical" models that rely on energy levels are not sufficient. There is no claim of teleportation that I could see.

But then it doesn't sound cool! If only mainstream media would realize that what is considered 'dry' is still actually quite amazing when you think about it. I believe the concept of the electromagnetic field permeating charged objects and exerting 'spooky-action-at-a-distance' is just as captivating as 'teleportation'.

Hm, now that sounds reasonable, if somewhat weird. If it holds up under further examination and applies to polymers other than DNA, it might have some terrifically useful applications in industrial chemical synthesis.

I did not RTFA, but I have worked with DNA and protein affinities and it is fairly obvious that there is more going on than just local electrostatic attractions. I don't doubt that more is going on, but to characterize it as quantum teleportation is likely more to do with getting read than serious assertion. It seems that quantum teleportation is the new buzz word that people like. It won't materialize ( pun intended ).

When I first read this story I misread the first line and though the scientist had won the Nobel Prize for this research. Later I realized I recognized his name. Luc Montagnier, FWIW, won the Prize in 2008 for being the first to isolate HIV (at a time when its exact role in AIDS was unknown). He's since remained pretty prominent in HIV/AIDS research.

This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.

To put it simply, this is BS, on all levels.
The summary is just wrong, teleportation doesn't even appear in the article on arXiv.
But then the arXiv article is ridiculous. It's a thinly veiled attempt to play with homeopathy: "high dilutions", "mechanical agitation between each dilution", and low frequency EM taking the place of "concussing", "water nanostructures" formed on the DNA which can be used to recreate the DNA sequence?
And the paper is totally amateur hour.
In summary: It's BS.

In each cycle it was diluted 10-fold, and "ghost" DNA was only recovered after between seven and 12 dilutions of the original. It was not found at the ultra-high dilutions used in homeopathy.

So, not so much. Unless by "play with" you mean "dismiss offhand". I really don't get why so many people in the commentary are being completely dismissive of this as new age nonsense. He's not obviously trying to push an agenda in the paper as far as I could tell. It really seems like he saw some weird effects and documented them, and that's all. Either he's flat out lying, or he really saw something odd which hasn't been fully explained. Why assume that he's lying before any independent trials are done?

That's an interesting claim. Most of the DNA molecules would somehow have to be in sync to get audio-frequency waveforms out.
How's that supposed to happen?

I can't speak for the physics, but the experimental setup seems bogus. See Fig. 1. They have a coil with a test tube inside it. The coil is connected to an audio amplifier and then to the audio input on a laptop, where some frequency analysis takes place.
They claim that a solution of DNA in water emits signals which can be read by that setup.

A setup like that is enormously sensitive to any electric or magnetic fields in the vicinity, mechanical vibration, and even mechanical motion of conductive objects, like fan blades. Like most low-level RF experiments, something like that has to be conducted in a electrically and mechanically quiet area. (RF engineers use either RF-shielded rooms or wooden boxes/sheds in open fields.)

The history of "polywater" [wikipedia.org] is relevant here. There, it was for a while thought that water could somehow polymerize and change properties. It turned out to be a contamination problem. Here, the authors talk about previously unknown "nanostructures" in water.

A setup like that is enormously sensitive to any electric or magnetic fields in the vicinity, mechanical vibration, and even mechanical motion of conductive objects, like fan blades. Like most low-level RF experiments, something like that has to be conducted in a electrically and mechanically quiet area. (RF engineers use either RF-shielded rooms or wooden boxes/sheds in open fields.)

arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it lacks the intrinsic rigor of a peer-reviewed journal.) It's the Wikipedia of science papers.

While arXiv is filled with some neat (and some not-so-neat) ideas for science fiction writers, I'd be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give credence to anything that sounds weird that resides there. Seriously, I know some cool stuff appears there, but we've been through this before. When is/.'s staff going to stop citing arXiv papers as being somehow more plausible than the Dean drive?

This is pretty nonsensical. At 7 Hz the wavelength for sound in water would be hundreds of meters and light would be many order of magnitude more. How would such an em field be involved in forming nanometer resolution structures in water?

This is yet another case of wild extrapolation from measurements that are at or beyond the limits of the tools being used.

I would have more faith in this experiment if the genetic testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments on them. Maybe he found what he was looking for because he expected it to be found.

More to the point, Tesla's ideas for wireless transmission of energy miss the reality by orders of magnitude. They don't hold up to simple electromagnetic propagation calculations (path loss, for one).

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable.

Welcome to the state that 98% of humanity is always in regarding anything beyond highschool science. Remember that magicians are only respected when they produce fantastic results or are feared. Otherwise, wizards are reviled, pitied, and laughed at.

It's not true. But that has never stopped charlatans and quacks before. Why would a little thing like lack of truth stop them this time? The world is full of gullible people just begging to be separated from their money.

Except the point is that if enough people meditate regularly -- the original idea was 20 minutes, twice a day -- then you can live an otherwise normal life, but it'll lower crime.

I grew up in Fairfield, IA. I was somewhat disappointed when I checked out the skepdic entry on TM only to find that the strongest debunk was James Randi calling up the Fairfield Police Department and asking whether the influx of meditators had reduced crime. Nope, crime rates had increased if anything, but were pretty typical eith

He used to work on pretty sophisticated and legitimate science where he did some valuable research and now he working for the Maharishi trying to link things like meditation with actual physics.

What has caused such a dramatic change?

Seems that after he joined the Maharishi movement, he still did some things that were actually scientific and his approach to politics is still a lot more scientific than the ruling political parties in the US.

So... erm... Let's see the evidence. Having skimmed the paper, I just don't see it claiming what Hagelin claims.

I was a meditator for years. I grew up in it. I'm better off without it now, but I'd still very much like to be proven wrong, if only because it'd be really cool to know how humans can levitate, if, in fact, they can.

Illusionists by a variety of names have been making people believe in impossible things. All it takes is an audience to believe the mysticism or mythology, before asking to understand the technology. Too many people are willing to believe the "miracle" answer, without understanding the technological answer.

If I read your comment right, you've grown beyond the mysticism answers. If we can only drag a few billion other people past the threshold, humanity would be in good shape.

When I see a real guru fly in a way unexplainable by technology, magic carpet or otherwise, I'll agree with you. There are plenty of people who have dedicated their lives to such pursuits. Most of them say that they aren't worthy, therefore were not able to accomplish it, or they'll tell you that it happened.

I've been around quite a bit, and I have yet to see anyone floating without a technological method to accomplish it. And no, saying "it doesn't work because you don't be

I do meditate (not daily), but I don't believe in any of the supernatural benefits either. I was prescribed yoga lessons by a physician for spinal arthritis about thirty five years ago, and it was the only prescription I ever got that was better than over the counter analgesics. But it isn't magic. Yoga is about relaxing, stretching, breathing. Nothing supernatural about its effects on arthritis.

As to levitating and that other nonsense, I can't figure out how people can possibly believe any of it. Although